Hi Mike,
Mike Dierken wrote:
>
> Why not call it http:meta rather than html:meta?
Because of the legacy of equivalent functionality in HTML. I
considered creating an entirely new structure for doing this, but that
would have orphaned existing practice with HTML/XHTML. I also argued
for a single mechanism rather than language specific ones, so that
this could be implemented in the web server itself.
> Come up with a canonical DTD for the HTTP protocol & the http: namespace
> would use elements & attributes (if any) from that.
>
> <!-- canonical representation (not fully thought out...) -->
[snip]
I specifically stayed away from trying to change the HTTP protocol
syntax. That's a non-starter as far as I'm concerned.
I called this a bridge because it allows XML authors to use XML to
extend HTTP, without requiring HTTP to change its syntax.
MB